> but without clear unambiguous technology standards and
> tools that provide ways to talk about conformance
Objectively testable rules are great for company lawyers, as
they remove risk, but they are bad for accessibility.
They break in two ways:
- the Bobby way - people code to pass the objective test without
regard to real accessibility;
- by stifling creativity - they don't allow for new technology or
creative ways of making older technology accessible.
Rules that are tight enough to force good practice are likely to
be the target of loophole searches by designers, with an end result
that is again not accessible.
Most UK legislation does not lay down specific rules. There is a
lot of recourse to phrases like "a reasonable person", "without
reasonable excuse", etc. (Where specifics are given, it is normally
as secondary legislation (statutory instruments) but the primary
legislation (Acts) still has to allow this.
At the moment, I don't think there is much fear of the legislation,
and most of those who are aware of it probably hope to get round it
either by claiming that they provide the equivalent service by other
means or that it is unreasonably costly to change.